I waited all week for the New York Times to respond to the cataclysmic events in Gaza. For the first time in common memory an Arab Islamic Sunni government has become engulfed in civil war. The events in Iraq are hot right now, but they involve non-Arabs Kurds and Sunni/Shia clashes, while in Lebanon Christians are thrown into the mix of sectarian warfare. This is a big first for the Middle East: brothers killing brothers in Gaza in the name of extreme Islam on the one hand, and a corrupt secular fascism on the other. (Some would argue the strife in Syria, Egypt and Jordan against the Muslim Brotherhood is similar. And they'd be right, except they haven't turned to civil wars yet.)
Yesterday, the Times finally responded, and unfortunately they went down the well-trod path of Tony Lewis (perhaps he wrote it?), Jimmy Carter and others. They unilaterally blame the Israelis, and the Bush Government — surely a pawn for a powerful yet undetectable Israel Lobby — for the fall of Fatah in Gaza.
The editorial is so factually blind as to be ludicrous were it not in a major publication. Here's a choice bit:
"It may sometimes look like there's not very much of a choice between the gunmen of Fatah and the gunmen of Hamas. But there is. Fatah accepts Israel's existence and wants to negotiate with it over Palestinian statehood. It also accepts the authority of past agreements signed by the Palestinians, including agreements to stop terrorism. Hamas accepts none of these things, and sees no contradiction between its terrorist deeds and its demands that its governing officials be treated like those of any state."
Unfortunately for the Times, actions speak louder than words. While Fatah may have convinced the editors that it seeks peace and honors agreements, it has more accurately inherited Arafat's legacy of appealing for peace in English while urging attacks in Arabic. (I'm thinking of Arafat's famous "Shahid, shahid, shahid" speech). The Times fails to recognize that Fatah's "acceptance" of Israel means little beyond spilled ink.
Who started the second intifada after Arafat's refusal for an agreement in the Camp David Accords of 2001? That was a pure Fatah play, with Hamas as wary participants. Why have thousands of missiles rained on Israel from Fatah-controlled territory in Gaza for the past several years? And is it Fatah who has ties to the Al Aqsa Brigades, which is responsible for scores of suicide bombings and Lord knows how many thwarted attacks? Sadly, it isn't hard to imagine Fatah eagerly invading Israel, should it be military weakened from an attack by Syria or Iran. Attacks they openly acknowledge planning and which the West is powerless, or unwilling, to halt.
The Times refuses to accept the elephant in the room. Fatah isn't a peaceful camp of earnest human rights activists, they are a gang of corrupt oligarchs sucking wealth out of refugee camps the UN is complicit in maintaining. The losers? Palestinian civilians. For those who have been to the region, ever wonder who profits from all of the UN-provided food ration cards that find their way to the Palestinian black market? And why are there refugee camps in sovereign Palestinian lands, anyway?
Fatah — and Hamas — are part of the latest iteration in a long history of Arab nationalism. It's a complicated history, dating back to the break up of the Ottoman empire — but the Times editorial completely ignores it in favor an old — and wrong — argument that Israel is to blame. The cause of Arab nationalism has brought more violence and economic damage to the region — to say nothing of the endless moral violations against women, homosexuals, and minorities — than any Israeli settlement or American policy.
Apropos of the above, the Times editorial concludes predictably:
"For Washington and Jerusalem to exert constructive influence in this dangerous situation, they urgently need to adopt a new and wiser approach to Palestinian politics. That means doing more to help Mr. Abbas in the only currency that really counts, easing the lives of ordinary Palestinians.
That should include a total freeze on settlement building and expansion, a prompt easing of the onerous, humiliating and economically strangulating blockades on Palestinian movements within the West Bank, and the swift release to Mr. Abbas's office of all tax revenues rightfully belonging to the Palestinians but still in Israeli hands."
Last time anyone checked, the Israelis weren't maintaining an expensive and taxing lockdown on the West Bank because Jews are inherently malicious, or that Israel is fascist state. Nor were settlements in the far off West Bank responsible for Hamas gunmen murdering peace protesters in Gaza, throwing a shackled man from a high rise building, or executing surrendering Fatah militants in the streets. (All reported by the
Times and others this past week.)
The Israelis have adopted a defensive strategy to try and slow the constant threat of terror attacks on Israeli civilians, which includes the successful security barrier. No intifada, no checkpoints. The Times should know better. There were no checkpoints in 1994 at the conclusion of the Oslo agreements. Helping Mr. Abbas — a man whose dissertation questioned the Holocaust — can't possibly be the responsibility of Israel. It is the responsibility of the Palestinians, and the responsibility of their leaders, to take control of their own destiny in order to safeguard their own state - which means leaving their Kalashnikovs alone
The Times is missing the point here, again, which doesn't bode well for the upcoming American elections -- where a Democrat is surely to win the presidency, and where foreign policy will continue to dominate, just as it did in 2004. How will aging ideologies — blaming Israel each time the Middle East suffers collapse — help us determine friend from foe in a volatile region? The stakes couldn't be higher for getting it right. Or wrong.